Tammy has been hammering away with the negative ads and Tommy hasn't. In fact, Tommy has substantially fewer ads (negative or positive) than Tammy. Money wins! The same with Romney. There haven't been many Romney ads in Wisconsin.

In that same Quinnipiac/ CBS/NYT poll, they used a WISCONSIN sample of D 35 and R 27 and the Senate race was tied 47-47 so I guess Marquette just used even more Dems for their poll which shows this huge Dem lead.

It's very interesting! And with the economy in the toilet, unemployment the worst it's been since the Great Depression, and foreign affairs apparently going off like a lit match in a fireworks factory, why would the polls suddenly show a liberal strongly ahead?

They might look with curiosity at dinosaur bones at the museum, but then they go home.

Then they see these folks who have been around since the Jurassic Age, who have interjected themselves into people's lives since forever, and their response to them is GO AWAY, please just finally leave me alone and go live your own life without involving me in it. Find an existence that does not involve lording it over other please. GO. AWAY.

Especially if they are boring and dull and really do not stand for anything except, "elect me and let me govern you because I don't know how to do anything else except be a busy-body in other people's lives."

The latest (9/19) New York Times / Quinnipiac poll has TT and Baldwin in a dead heat at 47% and 47%. That is a shift from 50% for TT and 42% for Baldwin on August 23rd. The 9/16 PPP poll has TT at 45% and Baldwin at 48%. So, maybe things have indeed shifted for Tammy. Still a very close race.

"Depression, and foreign affairs apparently going off like a lit match in a fireworks factory, why would the polls suddenly show a liberal strongly ahead?"

Two reasons appeal.

One, there is a tactic when wanting your way and things are bad to make them far, far worse so that any thoughts of successfully opposing your way seem impossible and the opposer folds. Masochism.

Two, so many people want others to be hurt and unhappy that a cascade preference starts in the direction of increasing hurt and unhappiness among the generality. Sadism.

Moral: never think individuals or groups, especially when heavily marketed, are rational, self-interested or self-correcting. Intellectual and moral health are always rare and when the political class, aka society's leadership cadre, is a stranger to those qualities of character the situation is desperate and therefore pre-violent. Such conditions favor thuggery, not care.

shiloh - Ryan is even running ads for his own House race now, where he's won by 30+ points the last several times. Can you imagine if he goes down there too? You will be orgasming non-stop for a month.

If I was a leftist, I think I'd want a Romney win here. Since Romney is not a fire breathing reformer, even if he manages to fix things a little, Obama will still get some of the credit. If Obama wins, he won't fix anything, and the left will get all the blame for that.

So I'm torn: A little fix now or a big fix later.

It would be strange to say I voted for Obama to destroy him, but knowing his abilities, it actually makes sense.

Unfortunately for you lefties, he'll take you with him, so really this election is a loss for you either way. We all know Obama isn't going to fix things, but you guys just don't care. Enjoy the ride.

More and more folks realized they liked the old Tommy who could work with Democrats better then the new Tea Party Tommy who represents big pharma. Further the other old millionaire, Ron Johnson, so far has not done much for Wisconsin, so more folks are thinking why not give a younger women the floor and maybe get some balance back in the state.

Some of these polls are fine and even useful--sometimes even oversampling can be useful, if,that is, the purpose is to learn or examine specific things--but it's the ones like this poll that just make you want to lament for the ridiculousness of it all. No way Obama has a commanding lead in a state that has been trending so strongly to the right of center, supporting Walker, for this sustained period of time.

In my heart of hearts I believe that Romney will win Wisconsin and also the general election. This terrifies me, and I think it a terribly unjust outcome. But it is what I think will happen.

Such high expectations for your man. Like I said, you only care about winning.

There simply is no way for you to win in the long run, unless you celebrate and leave the country. But, even that won't work, because leftist/collectivist ideas are running every modern nation into the ground. You really are lost out there, on a high speed train to reality. Your only real option is to become a Wingnut. You know you want it. It comes with real bootstraps, not the government issue ones that are tied together. Come on in - we're cleaning out the tent to make room for the disillusioned crowd right behind you.

Andy, The Gay mafia is trying to defeat a gay Republican running for mayor of San Diego and they're gay baiting. Irony, don't you think? Like feminism is not about women but about liberals, apparently gay politics has devolved into that also. Give me an intellectually honest answer, not your schtick.

bagoh20 offered garage: Your only real option is to become a Wingnut. You know you want it. It comes with real bootstraps, not the government issue ones that are tied together. Come on in - we're cleaning out the tent to make room for the disillusioned crowd right behind you.

Come on, garage...you want to wind up stuck in a pup tent face-to-face with Allie or Andy, do you?

PEW: Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.

Not only does Obama enjoy a substantial lead in the horserace, he tops Romney on a number of key dimensions. His support is stronger than his rival’s, and is positive rather than negative. Mitt Romney’s backers are more ardent than they were pre-convention, but are still not as enthusiastic as Obama’s. Roughly half of Romney’s supporters say they are voting against Obama rather than for the Republican nominee. With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, candidates lacking mostly positive backing have lost in November.

Andy, The Gay mafia is trying to defeat a gay Republican running for mayor of San Diego and they're gay baiting. Irony, don't you think? Like feminism is not about women but about liberals, apparently gay politics has devolved into that also. Give me an intellectually honest answer, not your schtick.

I haven't been following the SD mayor's race. Is this what you are referring to? Or something else? I want to make sure I know what you are talking about before I respond.

I'm not saying any such thing. Working in marketing research, launched 4 surveys today, I know how easy it is to make sampling errors and other typed of errors. To get such discrepancy, you only need to make the error once. One survey's good, one's bad (maybe). But, which is which.

Yes, Andy. I like DeMaio and if I was eligible would vote for him. I believe it's myopic to have a litmus test for gay candidates, as I do for black, Hispanic, female, etc. pols. I'm guessing you disagree.

What do you mean by litmus test? Are you asking if I would automatically support a candidate because they are gay?

Based on that article it doesn't sound like I would support DeMaio, but that's not surprising since I'm a Democrat and he sounds like a generic Republican on most issues, aside from his support for gay marriage.

Politicians spouses come up in political campaigns, and the mentions described in the article sound like standard political tussling. I do think a gay politician accepting (inviting?) support from Prop 8 backers is a little sad.

My husband and all of his very liberal friends think Wisconsin isn't a battleground state for the presidential election. He and his friends think that Obama is so far ahead that the Romney doesn't have a prayer of winning Wisconsin. I think that even my very liberal husband will be surprised that Tammy has such a big lead because he didn't think that Tammy was electable in a statewide election.

Andy, I meant a litmus test on things like taking $ from people who don't abide gay marriage. The Dem is a very bland run of the mill candidate. DeMaio is a smart, dynamic guy who had a horrible childhood and overcame it. A compelling story.

I believe the CBS poll had a 35D 27R poll split. Not as bad as marquette, but still pretty skewed. Not sure how they expect those partisan turnout numbers after all the recent elections we had recently.

Some of these polls are fine and even useful--sometimes even oversampling can be useful, if,that is, the purpose is to learn or examine specific things--but it's the ones like this poll that just make you want to lament for the ridiculousness of it all. No way Obama has a commanding lead in a state that has been trending so strongly to the right of center, supporting Walker, for this sustained period of time.

Sounds like someone trying to reconcile himself to something.

shiloh said...

Willard rolling out his v-p pick on the museum ship, USS Wisconsin, also made me smile to see two clueless chicken hawks aboard a US battleship. Perfect!

Recite for us all the naval battles in which you've participated.

What branch of the military did you serve in Shiloh?

USN

Might want to run that past Fen.

Especially in light of all the lies in which he's been caught.

BTW, what does the little animal think of his Messiah unable to put an exact figure to the national debt?

Four Years Ago Today...Obama's lead over McCain was 1.9 percent. Today, his lead over Romney is 2.8 percent. (RCP)

yeah...Romney's killin it...

Four years ago today, Rasmussen showed Obama and McCain tied 48-48.

It was the next week, where Obama finally broke out - after the Lehman Bros collapse and the onset of the financial crisis. By Sept 29, 2008, Obama was leading 50-45 and his lead never faded. The huge collapse in the stock market, and Obama's 3 to 1 money advantage in late september/early october further drove Obama's bumbers and he maintained a +5 to +7 lead to election day.

We will see if Obama can accomplish a similar break-out this time. We will know in a week. Although this time, events seem to be working against Obama rather than for him.

Isn't that their plan? They can't be seen helping Romney in plain sight lest they be judged racist so they are going out of their way to actually look like obvious psychophants for Obama and thus help Romney.

At the same time, while this poll is certainly over the top, it would not surprise me at all if some sort of Obamabump occurred as a result of Romney's kneejerk, shrill, and ignorant response to the Libya murders. Romney was after all the opposite of Presidential, in that moment.

And, to the extent that perhaps some sort of Obamabump may take place in the future, as a result of the "47%" comment: I find it entertaining the way that some people try to compare this moment with Obama's comments about "bitter clingers" in San Fran. Because not only, as Ann has pointed out, was Obama actually speaking to the importance of making policies that benefit people who are economically exploited, clingers though they be.

But also, Romney's "47%" comment actually UNDERSCORED the truth of what Obama had said in that speech. No matter how much the GOP yells Abortion [Squirrel!]! or Teh Gays [Squirrel!] or They're Takin' Our Guns [Squirrel!], they continue to piss all over poor whites in the very states that they call strongholds.

Yes, I am trying to reconcile myself to my growing sense that Romney will win. That's what I was saying. Pretty plainly. In case you thought you were doing some sort of "between the lines" reading, you weren't.

At the same time, while this poll is certainly over the top, it would not surprise me at all if some sort of Obamabump occurred as a result of Romney's kneejerk, shrill, and ignorant response to the Libya murders. Romney was after all the opposite of Presidential, in that moment.

The people who will possibly change their vote over Libya will not change it based on what Romney or Obama say about the matter. They will change it based on the constant news and video about people violently demonstrating against the United States in dozens of countries around the world. If you previously thought that Obama has been successful in making people like us more, that perception will change due to actual facts.

If you previously thought that Obama has been successful in making people like us more, that perception will change due to actual facts.

According to the prevailing logic here (cf. Allie et allies), Obama could get the Arab world to like us more if only we'd stop inciting them. It's our stupid fault. The ham-handed attempt to subvert the Constitution failed. Now what?

It's actually a very good question. My answer is that in a lot of ways Ron Paul looks better more and more, on foreign policy. People call him weak on defense. But really he's pretty constitutional about it, is all.

Bob Ellison said...It's very interesting! And with the economy in the toilet, unemployment the worst it's been since the Great Depression, and foreign affairs apparently going off like a lit match in a fireworks factory, why would the polls suddenly show a liberal strongly ahead?

===================It just might be that Republicans have underestimated the damage the Wall Street meltdown and betrayal of trust the "Doer Folk" of the 1%, as Bush fondly called them - still is on the Republican brand.

Add in that some of the ideas championed since Reagan's day have become stale - 1. Free trade is great because ot means more jobs for Americans at great salaries making things the Chinese can't!2. Just give the richest people big tax cuts and they will invest that money in jobs.3. Anyone who does not have a great job is lazy, failed to get a good education and have only themselves to blame....4. Republicans are the Party of American Values.5. Republicans are the Party that understands foreign policy and the military and will not get us into endless futile wars like Vietnam.

All that Oldtime Good Old Reagan Era dogma has taken a beating in the eyes of voters in the middle.

And Republicans are seeing demographic changes and a focus that focuses on Heartland values that add to their misery - as they have effectively lost any chance for California, Pennsylvania, any New England state, are losing ground in central rustbelt states, the Southwest...and even in the Deep South as certain states move away from considering themselves Deep South Fundie ground (Virginia, N Carolina).

Republicans best shot is to tell voters that they gave America Bush, free trade, and let the rich run amok to nearly destroy our capitalist financial system and stuck us in two wars that drained us and cost us much of our reputation and money.....That yes, Bush & Co really fucked up!But Obama is an ever worse fuckup and don't give him 8 years like Bush got.

garage, If politics makes you blind to a babe, then just shoot your dick off..it's useless. Krystal Ball has bb boobs, a squeeky voice, and a horrible face. You lost ALL credibility you may have had on this. And, as any real man knows, if they have no boobs, just flip them over!

Yes, I am trying to reconcile myself to my growing sense that Romney will win. That's what I was saying. Pretty plainly. In case you thought you were doing some sort of "between the lines" reading, you weren't.

Fair enough.

There's so much denial, on all sides here, you never know who's being up front.

If you poll nothing but Democrats you can get the desired result. Relax on all of these polls. They're push polls. Nationally there are only a couple of polls that are realistic. Rasmussen and Gallup. Pew and NBC News way over-samples Democrats. They're polls are meaningless. Gallup is polling registered voters nationally and have it at 1 point for Obama. When they switch to likely voters there will be a 3-5 point swing toward Romney. This race is way tighter than the media wants the public to believe. The race is close but it is nowhere near the 5-8 points in NBC and Pew.

1. Free trade is great because ot means more jobs for Americans at great salaries making things the Chinese can't!

So...Chinese people shouldn't have jobs?

2. Just give the richest people big tax cuts and they will invest that money in jobs.

Did you pay attention to the last twenty years of tax changes? Because they have all tilted toward the richer paying more taxes. This was true even with the "Bush tax cuts". Weren't you paying attention?

3. Anyone who does not have a great job is lazy, failed to get a good education and have only themselves to blame....

OK, maybe. What's your argument here?

4. Republicans are the Party of American Values.

Yes!

5. Republicans are the Party that understands foreign policy and the military and will not get us into endless futile wars like Vietnam.

Well, there you're on to something. Both parties suck at picking out what to do when it comes to foreign policy.

Whats weird about the polling is that as of August there were more registered republicans than democrats I wonder what a poll of likely voters weighed by the current proportion of party/independent registrations would be.

WASHINGTON — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated_ will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Looking at the Marquette poll methodology it seems they weighted their sample to 44 R / 44 D; their raw sample was 46 R/ 42 D. They are getting their party affiliation numbers from 2011 adults, not 2008. So it's the difference between all adults and likely voters that affects the weighting here, they're not weighting from 2008.

Suppose I take at face value the charge that pollsters are largely oversampling Democrats. I do not dispute it, but I haven't looked into it myself. For now let's go with it.

What is in it for the polling organizations if they are oversampling deliberately? They'll end up looking silly when they get it badly wrong (cf. Dewey Defeats Truman, a classic case of poor sampling). It's not enough to say they're all in the tank for Obama. First you'd have to prove that, and second you'd have to figure out why supporting Obama, at the cost of their credibility as a polling organization, would be worth it to them. You can only expend your credibility one time.

But it looks like polling organizations have got lots of things wrong and are still in business. Anyway, I don't buy that they're all in cahoots to reelect Obama and are doing it deliberately. If they are really are oversampling, why are they all making the same mistake--all except Rasmussen?

It is worth seriously trying to figure this out, rather than just dismissing the polls. I do not believe they are all oversampling in the same way for the same reason, until I see evidence that they are.